§ 13. Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ballot papers in the recent local elections were disqualified for lack of an official mark.
§ Mr. MayhewThe information is not available centrally.
§ Mr. HooleyIs the Minister aware that I am grateful to him for the letter on this subject of national elections, which I received this morning? Does he agree that it is unfair that a voter who casts his vote in a proper manner should have that vote disqualified by the sloppiness or incompetence of the polling clerk? Is he aware that that has occurred on a number of occasions recently in Sheffield? Will he look at the matter again?
§ Mr. MayhewOf course I agree that it is unfair and that it should not happen. Fortunately, it happens on a proportionately tiny scale. At the last general election 3,282 ballot papers were rejected for want of an official mark. That is an average of five per constituency.
§ Mr. Garel-JonesDoes my hon. and learned Friend agree that this matter and others connected with electoral law should be considered by the House now? When will he produce a White Paper on the Representation of the People Act?
§ Mr. MayhewMy right hon. Friend is engaged in a review of electoral law and hopes to publish his conclusions shortly.
§ Dr. Edmund MarshallMay I reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about unfairness? Why cannot ballot papers that lack the official mark be included in the count unless the number of ballot papers in a box exceeds the number issued?
§ Mr. MayhewThat can be done, but the present procedure, which has been in force since 1872, was instituted to provide as good a safeguard as reasonably practical against impersonation. One can envisage a number of variations. These matters fall to be considered as part of the review of electoral law.